The framers didn’t lay out a simple, one-sentence answer, so historians and constitutional scholars piece it together from the text of the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and early practices. Here’s a breakdown:
1. Constitutional Text
- Take Care Clause (Article II, §3): The president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This was understood as making the president ultimately responsible for execution of the laws, which naturally includes law enforcement.
- Appointment and Removal Powers (Article II, §§2–3):
The president appoints executive officers (with Senate consent) and can remove them (at least those exercising executive functions). That suggests law enforcement officials are extensions of presidential authority.
2. Framers’ Concerns
- The framers wanted an “energetic” executive (Federalist No. 70, Hamilton). Law enforcement was seen as part of that energy—contrasting with the weak executive under the Articles of Confederation.
- At the same time, they feared tyranny. They deliberately separated powers: the president enforces the law but does not make law (Congress) or adjudicate guilt (courts).
- They avoided creating a national police force. Law enforcement in daily life was expected to remain largely in the hands of states and localities. The federal government only had authority over federal law, which was much narrower in scope in the 1790s than today.
3. Early Practice
- George Washington set the precedent: he personally directed federal marshals and even called up militias (e.g., Whiskey Rebellion, 1794). That showed the president had direct control over federal enforcement mechanisms when needed.
- But the day-to-day policing of ordinary crimes (theft, assault, etc.) was left to state and local authorities.
4. Scholarly Consensus
- The framers intended the president to have direct supervisory control over federal law enforcement officers (like marshals, customs collectors, military enforcement of federal law).
- They did not intend for the president to run all law enforcement nationwide. Federal law enforcement was supposed to be limited and bounded by Congress’s lawmaking and the judiciary’s oversight.
In sum: The framers did envision the president as the chief law enforcer of federal law, with direct authority over federal officers. But they did not intend for the president to control all law enforcement across the country — most police power was meant to remain with the states.
- For the full answer click here.
